Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: What is the point in using fast computers to ge an average rating?

Author: stuart taylor

Date: 01:08:48 12/06/02

Go up one level in this thread


I would strongly reccomend waiting a bit longer. From 1.2 till 2.6 isn't all
that much. Even 2.8 would be better being x2.5. But I think it can wait till
between 2.8 and 4.2. Then the difference will be more interesting, and also
cause less confusion.
  And many people today still use around 1.2, and I also don't think the
computer industry deserves sooo much glory that every few days we need their
upgrades.
 What will be really interesting when a program will be written and designed to
benefit greatly from more time. That should become the competition. If a program
maxes out at tournament time on 4.2 AMD, that would be an interesting thing.
S.Taylor




On December 06, 2002 at 02:37:43, Jorge Pichard wrote:

>On December 05, 2002 at 18:29:31, Mike S. wrote:
>
>>>To require that all programs run on an "old" computer would be to require that
>>>new chess engines not take advantage of the new technologies.
>>
>>It requires only that engines do not *need* new technologies to run at all (i.e.
>>like F7 requiring MMX CPUs). But as long as they run on old computers, they can
>>do that, if they take advantage of new technologies on other computers or not.
>>It would just add some fun for poeple who like to argue like, "The list is
>>wrong, engine XY would rank much higher if latest CPUs would have been used, 2
>>Gigbytes Rambus hash, etc.etc." :o))
>>
>>(But of course it's favourable that test hardware isn't too much different from
>>what's the "average" of what the fans use at home.)
>>
>>Regards,
>>M.Scheidl
>
>
>Yes, that is precisely the point. The main reason for establishing the SSDF was
>to give the computer fans an estimated rating based on what's the average of
>what most of the computer fans use at home. Two years ago the average hardwares
>used was somewhere between a K6-450 Mhz and AMD 1.0 Ghz, but nowadays a more
>realistic average would be somewhere between an AMD 1.2 Ghz and an AMD XP 2600+.
>Of course you can always estimate what the rating would be by adding 50 Elo
>points when you double the hardware's speed. But the K6-450 it is just too Old,
>it doesn't matter if CT 15 performs better than Deep Fritz on a K6, when hardly
>15% is still using the Old K6 450 Mhz.
>
>Pichard.



This page took 0 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.